Military discussion post 250 words and Responses to 2x provided classmate post

case2discissionrubric.html

Home >Government homework help >Military discussion post 250 words and Responses to 2x provided classmate post

Rubric Detail

A rubric lists grading criteria that instructors use to evaluate student work. Your instructor linked a rubric to this item and made it available to you. Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric's layout.

Content

Name: Case Study Update

	Substandard	Developing	Proficient	Exemplary
Understanding of Readings and Outside RelevanceFormatting	Points: 0 (0%) Discussion posting shows little or no evidence that readings were completed or understood. Posting is largely personal opinions or feelings; single statements such as "I agree" or "great idea" are present without supporting statements with concepts from the readings, outside resources, relevant research, or specific real-life application. Feedback:	Points: 2.92 (6.67%) Discussion post repeats and summarizes basic, correct information, but does not link readings to outside references, relevant research or specific real-life application; post does not consider alternative perspectives or connections between ideas. Outside source is cited but did not incorporate information from the source within the body of the discussion. Feedback:	Points: 5.84 (13.33%) Discussion postings display an understanding of the required readings and underlying concepts including correct use of terminology and proper citation. Outside sources are incorporated and used within the body of the post. Outside source is cited properly. Feedback:	Points: 8.76 (20%) Discussion postings display an excellent understanding of the required readings and underlying concepts including correct use of terminology. Postings integrate an outside resource, or relevant research, or specific real-life application (work experience, prior coursework, etc.) to support important points. Well-edited quotes are cited appropriately. No more than 10% of the posting is a direct quotation. Feedback:
Participation in the Learning Community	Points: 0 (0%) Discussion postings do not contribute to ongoing conversations or respond to peers' postings. There is no evidence of replies to questions. No initial post and zero replies generated. Feedback:	Points: 2.92 (6.67%) Discussion postings sometimes contribute to ongoing conversations as evidence by: -affirming statements or references to relevant research -asking related questions -making an oppositional statement supported by any personal experience or related research - One post (initial or reply) Feedback:	Points: 5.84 (13.33%) Discussion postings actively stimulate and sustain further discussion by building on peers' responses including:-building a focused argument around a specific issue -asking a new related question -making an oppositional statement supported by personal experience or related research -Two posts (any combination of inital and/or replies) Feedback:	Points: 8.76 (20%) Discussion postings actively stimulate and sustain further discussion by building on peers' responses including:-building a focused argument around a specific issue -asking a new related question -making an oppositional statement supported by personal experience or related research -Three posts (1 intial and 2 replies) Feedback:
Etiquette in Dialogue with Peers	Points: 0 (0%) Written interactions on the discussion board show disrespect for the viewpoints of others. Feedback:	Points: 2.92 (6.67%) Some of the written interactions on the discussion board show respect and interest in the viewpoints of others. No adherence to custom, courtesies’, and basic email etiquette when addressing peers. Feedback:	Points: 5.84 (13.33%) Written interactions on the discussion board show respect and interest in the viewpoints of others. Vague adherence to custom, courtesies’, and basic email etiquette when addressing peers. Feedback:	Points: 8.76 (20%) Written interactions on the discussion board show respect and interest in the viewpoints of others. Vague adherence to custom, courtesies’, and basic email etiquette when addressing peers. Feedback:
Quality of Writing and Proofreading	Points: 0 (0%) Written responses contain numerous grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors. Feedback:	Points: 2.92 (6.67%) Written responses include some grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors that distract the reader. -Did not follow all assignment instructions. -Did not meet minimum word count. Feedback:	Points: 5.84 (13.33%) Written responses are largely free of grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors. The style of writing generally facilitates communication. Feedback:	Points: 8.76 (20%) Written responses are free of grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors. The style of writing facilitates communication. -Followed all assignment instructions and met minimum word count. Feedback:
References	Points: 0 (0%) None provided Feedback:	Points: 2.92 (6.67%) Reference contains substandard resource (i.e. wiki, dictionary.com, quotes.com). One reference provided. Feedback:	Points: 5.84 (13.33%) References are scholarly or doctrinal references. Two references provided. Feedback:	Points: 8.76 (20%) References are scholarly or doctrinal references. Three or more references provided. (1 reference for the initial post and one reference for each reply to a peer's initial post) Feedback:

Show Descriptions Show Feedback

Understanding of Readings and Outside RelevanceFormatting--

Levels of Achievement: Substandard 0 (0%) points Discussion posting shows little or no evidence that readings were completed or understood. Posting is largely personal opinions or feelings; single statements such as "I agree" or "great idea" are present without supporting statements with concepts from the readings, outside resources, relevant research, or specific real-life application. Developing 2.92 (6.67%) points Discussion post repeats and summarizes basic, correct information, but does not link readings to outside references, relevant research or specific real-life application; post does not consider alternative perspectives or connections between ideas. Outside source is cited but did not incorporate information from the source within the body of the discussion. Proficient 5.84 (13.33%) points Discussion postings display an understanding of the required readings and underlying concepts including correct use of terminology and proper citation. Outside sources are incorporated and used within the body of the post. Outside source is cited properly. Exemplary 8.76 (20%) points Discussion postings display an excellent understanding of the required readings and underlying concepts including correct use of terminology. Postings integrate an outside resource, or relevant research, or specific real-life application (work experience, prior coursework, etc.) to support important points. Well-edited quotes are cited appropriately. No more than 10% of the posting is a direct quotation. Feedback:

Participation in the Learning Community--

Levels of Achievement: Substandard 0 (0%) points Discussion postings do not contribute to ongoing conversations or respond to peers' postings. There is no evidence of replies to questions. No initial post and zero replies generated. Developing 2.92 (6.67%) points Discussion postings sometimes contribute to ongoing conversations as evidence by: -affirming statements or references to relevant research -asking related questions -making an oppositional statement supported by any personal experience or related research - One post (initial or reply) Proficient 5.84 (13.33%) points Discussion postings actively stimulate and sustain further discussion by building on peers' responses including:-building a focused argument around a specific issue -asking a new related question -making an oppositional statement supported by personal experience or related research -Two posts (any combination of inital and/or replies) Exemplary 8.76 (20%) points Discussion postings actively stimulate and sustain further discussion by building on peers' responses including:-building a focused argument around a specific issue -asking a new related question -making an oppositional statement supported by personal experience or related research -Three posts (1 intial and 2 replies) Feedback:

Etiquette in Dialogue with Peers--

Levels of Achievement: Substandard 0 (0%) points Written interactions on the discussion board show disrespect for the viewpoints of others. Developing 2.92 (6.67%) points Some of the written interactions on the discussion board show respect and interest in the viewpoints of others. No adherence to custom, courtesies’, and basic email etiquette when addressing peers. Proficient 5.84 (13.33%) points Written interactions on the discussion board show respect and interest in the viewpoints of others. Vague adherence to custom, courtesies’, and basic email etiquette when addressing peers. Exemplary 8.76 (20%) points Written interactions on the discussion board show respect and interest in the viewpoints of others. Vague adherence to custom, courtesies’, and basic email etiquette when addressing peers. Feedback:

Quality of Writing and Proofreading--

Levels of Achievement: Substandard 0 (0%) points Written responses contain numerous grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors. Developing 2.92 (6.67%) points Written responses include some grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors that distract the reader. -Did not follow all assignment instructions. -Did not meet minimum word count. Proficient 5.84 (13.33%) points Written responses are largely free of grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors. The style of writing generally facilitates communication. Exemplary 8.76 (20%) points Written responses are free of grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors. The style of writing facilitates communication. -Followed all assignment instructions and met minimum word count. Feedback:

References--

Levels of Achievement: Substandard 0 (0%) points None provided Developing 2.92 (6.67%) points Reference contains substandard resource (i.e. wiki, dictionary.com, quotes.com). One reference provided. Proficient 5.84 (13.33%) points References are scholarly or doctrinal references. Two references provided. Exemplary 8.76 (20%) points References are scholarly or doctrinal references. Three or more references provided. (1 reference for the initial post and one reference for each reply to a peer's initial post) Feedback: